Post
The 1977 statute gives the president certain tools to “deal with any unusual & extraordinary threat” to “the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.” That includes the power to “regulate” imports.
The president’s lawyers say that language gives him broad authority to impose #tariffs when he believes an emergency exists.
#SCOTUS #Trump #law #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #AbuseOfPower #economy
But the #law does not mention the words “tariffs,” “taxes” or “duties.” If the word “regulate” meant “tax,” the small businesses told the court, the president “could tax everything from autos to zoos.”
From the start, the admin has insisted that the consequences for the country are too significant for the court to resist #Trump.
#SCOTUS #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #AbuseOfPower #tariffs #economy
They say that rolling back the #tariffs — & potentially refunding money already collected — could lead to economic ruin akin to the Great Depression, an interruption of #trade negotiations & diplomatic embarrassment. [so don’t break the law in the first place jackasses]
#SCOTUS #Trump #law #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #AbuseOfPower #economy
…But prominent legal figures opposed to the #tariffs, including retired federal judges and a founder of the conservative #FederalistSociety, said the case was not a close call. While past presidents have invoked the emergency statute to impose sanctions or to freeze a country’s assets, #Trump is the first in 50 years to rely on it to impose tariffs.
#SCOTUS #law #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #AbuseOfPower #economy
“Emergency powers are meant to be used in emergencies,” said Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge nominated by President George W. Bush, who is leading the coalition of small businesses. “No Supreme Court would want to provoke a confrontation with a president of the United States unnecessarily, but on the other hand, the law is the law.”
#SCOTUS #Trump #law #PartisanCourt #ActivistCourt #AbuseOfPower #tariffs #economy
